Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, JJ.
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Yadav S/o Late Krishna Yadav - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.947 of 2024 In Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.3994 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/201/34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Appeal against acquittal – Manner in which occurrence has been depicted by informant creates doubt since no plausible explanation has been given – Statement of informant is neither convincing nor trustworthy – Investigation of I.O. suffers from infirmity on the point of motive behind occurrence and delay in lodging FIR – Investigating officer has failed to adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards, thereby rendering investigation unreliable – Inquest report has not been exhibited – Trial Court has taken a plausible view based on evidence available on record--Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt – Acquittal appeal dismissed. (Paras 16, 19, 25.3, 35, 40, 41 and 42)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Appeal against acquittal – Once Appellate Court comes to finding that grounds on which judgment is based is not perverse, scope of appeal against acquittal is limited considering the fact that legal presumption about innocence of accused is further strengthened by finding of Court – Unless and until finding of Trial Court is found to be perverse or illegal / impossible, it is not permissible for appellate Court to interfere with same – In order to reverse finding of acquittal, view taken by Trial Court must be held to be completely unsustainable and not a probable view. (Paras 14 and 33)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Circumstantial evidence – Judge should step into shoes of a prudent man – A common man would have many suppositions for cause of occurrence in a case based on circumstantial evidence – There are several circumstances which are placed before Court but it is only based on supposition – Then court evaluates each supposition and when court has ruled out suppositions, it is only such suppositions which has highest probability, should be relied upon and taken as proved. (Para 39)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution story and fir details (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. trial evidence and proceedings summary (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. appellant argues victim's statement admissible (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. state and respondents highlight inconsistencies (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. limited interference in acquittal appeals (Para 14 , 15 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. fir delay and identification flaws (Para 16 , 35) |
| 7. informant pw4 evidence unreliable (Para 19) |
| 8. mother pw1 testimony inconsistent (Para 20) |
| 9. family witnesses lack corroboration (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. hearsay and medical evidence noted (Para 23 , 24) |
| 11. investigation deficiencies exposed (Para 25) |
| 12. circumstantial chain incomplete (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 13. acquittal upheld, appeal dismissed (Para 41 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/informant, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge -17, Ara (Bhojpur) in Session Trial No. 424 of 2018 arising out Udwantnagar (Gajrajganj) P.S. Case No. 124 of 2017 (G.R. No. 1643 of 2017) registered under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. whereby and whereunder Respondent nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted by the learned trial court from the charges levelled against them under /34, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”).
3. According to the written report of the informant/PW4, i.e. Anil Kumar, the occurrence is of 28.04.2017. Informant unfolded the story of prosecution to the effect that informant’s nephew Ankit Kumar @ Niraj Kumar was taking meal on the fateful day at about 8 hours. In the meanwhile, Rani Devi, wife of Rajesh Yadav of the village of informant made a call on the mobile of informant’s nephew (victim) bearing mobile no. 8709831248 and asked the victim to come to her house and collect Rs. 55,000/- which was taken by her husband as debt. Thereafter, informant’s nephew/victim left the meal and started going to her house upon which query was made by the informant as to why the victim was leaving the house. The victim disclosed that wife of Rajesh Yadav has called him to pay him money and he was going to collect the said money. It is asserted by informant that victim did not return back after 5-6 hours then the informant made a call upon the mobile of the victim and the same was found to be switched off. It is further asserted by informant that he went to the house of Shiv Keshwar @ Fardu Yadav for making query where he saw that Vikram Yadav and Sitaram Yadav were talking with each other and when he asked them about the whereabouts of Niraj Kumar/victim, Vikram Yadav replied in abusive language that victim had not come here. It is further asserted by the informant that he went to search in the Samiyana (tent) of barat but he did not find the victim. On the next morning, when informant enquired from his wife, he learnt that the victim did not return home whole night. The victim was not traced out despite contact being made with his relatives on mobile. Further, case of the informant is that during the search, on 01.05.2017 at about 7AM when informant was going to grain yard (khaliyan), it was learnt from the villagers that a dead body kept in a sack had been thrown in a river. It is further asserted by informant that when he reached there, he saw that sack was tied by iron wire and when the informant tried to untie the sack, villagers forbade the informant to do so as information was given to thana and on the arrival of police, sack was opened. It is further alleged that in-charge of police station reached there near about 4-5 PM and sack was untied and dead body was not in a position to be identified. It was found that dead body had been burnt by acid for disappearing the evidence. It is alleged that there was a key at the waist of the dead body, due to which informant suspected that i
Appeals against acquittal warrant interference only if trial findings perverse or impossible; circumstantial case fails without complete chain excluding innocence, as here due to witness inconsistenc....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any gaps can benefit the accused.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals are reviewed under strict guidelines favoring the presumption of innocence.
Point of law:Acquital upheld - If the trial court takes a view that the accused deserves to be acquitted on the basis of evidence on record, such verdict cannot be reversed unless there is gross perv....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere circumstantial evidence and delayed FIR weaken the case, necessitating independent corroboration.
The court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear motive and reliable witness testimonies linking the appellant to the murder.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
